compatibilism

[iambiguous]

This is all tongue in cheek, right?

If not, I'll be moving on to others.

Compelled to or otherwise.

If there is no free will, your individual self is an illusion.
As well as the self of any other.

So there is life that takes place, where everything happens, but where there is no one.

It's very simple. And for this very reason it is so difficult.

Good luck.

Like you, I'll need it.

[iambiguous]

Let's say science proved that determinism is the case.
You, personally, read about the police catching serial killer. Would you argue, based now on the fact that determinsm is the case, that we should not incarcerate the serial killer`? Please at least start with a clear yes or no. It would just be your opinion, but what would it be?

Again, what do I keep missing here?!!

If science determines that everything we think, feel, say and do is fated/destined to unfold only as it ever possibly could have in the only possible reality, how are any possible opinions we might have not in turn included? How is anything that we might possibly argue not included?

Exactly what kind of determinism here are you talking about? The free will determinism of those like BigMike. A determinism compatible with holding Mary morally responsible for aborting Jane...even though she was never able not to abort her?

Is this all just some kind of language game?

Because one could want this person behind bars, even though he could not help it. In fact people who think animals have no choice but to go through their garbage, sting them, bite them when they have rabies, take measures to make sure the animals cannot repeat this act.

Back again to Schopenhauer: "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants."

How is that not the case here?

As for comparing the brains of lions and zebras and bears and bees and termites with our own brains, sure, it's possible that, re either God or Nature, human brains "somehow" acquired autonomy. Okay, so where's the hard evidence that this is the case? Link me to it in the world we live in today.

Instead, the "great debate" here marches on. Among scientists, among philosophers, among theologians. And between them.

Would it be morally wrong to take measures, like incarceration, to see to it the serial killer can't do it again?
Could one also hope that this act, would be a cause, that might inhibit others from murder?

Again, what on earth does morality mean when everything that we do and every manner in which we react to it is inherently/necessarily embedded in the only possible reality.

Back to dreams.

Last night I had a "work dream". In the dream I held my former employer responsible for nearly wrecking the company. In the end, he was responsible for me losing my job. And there I am in the dream recounting for him all of the arguments that I actually did believe were true. Arguments that I had not even thought of all those years ago!!

But this "reality" was entirely constructed by my brain. My brain was holding him responsible.

Of course, that's when nature compels others to insist that the wide-awake brain is completely different. We just don't know [definitively] how and why.

What is it about determinism that means that one cannot take action to prevernt certain actions?

You tell me. Here I'm ever and always back to this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

I can see how believing in determinism might ameliorate certain kinds of moral judgment. I can see how believing in determinism might lead at leat to some feelings of sympathy for criminals that others with extreme free will positions might be less likely to feel. I could see using other words for what a court is deciding about the person. But I see no reason to say one cannot take measures in relation to that person without being a hypocrite while believing in determinism.

Once again, your own understanding of determinism still allowing you of your own volition to see things, to reason about things as though your brain isn't really just more matter wholly in sync with the laws of matter at all.

And I'm the first to admit that may well be the case. So, Mr. Neuroscientist, Mr. Brain Specialist, Mr. Philosopher, Mr. Objectivist, pin that down for us.

Responsible is a complex word. In a deterministic universe the serial killer would not be the ultimate original cause. However....

2.
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

In practical terms, person X could be credited with the acts. and it would not be unscientific to say that doing this and taking measures to restrict person X would lead to him not repeating the act.

In practical terms? Okay, you tell me how that does not include everything that we think, feel, say and do, given your own assessment of determinism.

How is your own brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter...but not really.

Click.

I'm always open to admitting that I am not thinking this through correctly.

[iambiguous]

Well, if you believe that everything that we think, feel, say and do is wholly compelled by material brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter, then anything that has to do with anything at all unfolds in the only possible reality. Responsibility is assigned only as it ever could have been assigned. And why it's assigned is because it never could not have been assigned other than as it must be.

Do you understand why a serial killer goes to jail? And why that happens whether we are talking about determinism or free-will? Why he can't get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card?

Do you understand that anything that either one of us purports to understand here is an understanding that could never have not been if the assumptions of the particularly hardcore determinists are true.

Only back to this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

In other words, that, as with the free will libertarians, the hardcore determinists seem to have no capacity to demonstrate that what they believe is in fact the whole truth going back to an explanation for existence itself.

There's nothing to discuss here.

Maybe it's me and our history at ILP but I doubt it.

I will see how you respond to IWP before making any final assessment.

You are the one given a free will world who refuses to discuss the points I made above.

[iambiguous]

There's nothing to discuss here.

Those people are destroying this forum, phyllo

Translation:

"These people refuse to agree entirely with my own arguments here about determinism. And are thus destroying the forum. Even though in lacking free will they were never actually able to choose that option."

A "condition", right?

[BigMike]

Those people are destroying this forum, phyllo

Translation:

"These people refuse to agree entirely with my own arguments here about determinism. And are thus destroying the forum. Even though in lacking free will they were never actually able to choose that option."

A "condition", right?

I'll try to sum up where we differ, and I'll try to be fair:

I say: "We don't have free will, and moral responsibility doesn't make sense without it. So, instead of just saying, "Let's punish them because they deserve it!" we need to come up with new ways to deal with wrongdoers."

You say: "We couldn't hold people morally responsible if they didn't have free will. So, we have to reject the idea that there is no free will."

Do you think that, despite being brief and basic, that is essentially an accurate representation? If not, would you mind briefly outlining your position?

[iambiguous]

Those people are destroying this forum, phyllo

Translation:

"These people refuse to agree entirely with my own arguments here about determinism. And are thus destroying the forum. Even though in lacking free will they were never actually able to choose that option."

A "condition", right?

I'll try to sum up where we differ, and I'll try to be fair:

So much more to the point for other determinists, however, you are compelled -- fated, destined -- by your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to sum up here as you did. As you must. And what difference does it make that we differ if we were never able to not differ other than as we do? As we must. And fairness in a world that can never be other than as it can only be?

I say: "We don't have free will, and moral responsibility doesn't make sense without it. So, instead of just saying, "Let's punish them because they deserve it!" we need to come up with new ways to deal with wrongdoers."

Again! As though in a wholly determined universe that includes the human brain, what we "come up with" in regards to anything and everything isn't that which we were fated, destined to come up going all the way back to what we still have no definitive understanding of regarding the origin of matter -- of existence -- itself.

We don't even know if matter and its alleged "immutable laws" had an origin, right? For all we know both were just always "there".

God perhaps? On the other hand, does the matter some call God have free will? Does He have a beginning or was He just always around?

You say: "We couldn't hold people morally responsible if they didn't have free will. So, we have to reject the idea that there is no free will."

No, I say that if I say that, I say that because I was never able to not say that. And I say that whatever any of us either reject or accept in regard to moral responsibility, we were never able to not accept or reject.

Do you think that, despite being brief and basic, that is essentially an accurate representation? If not, would you mind briefly outlining your position?

Click.

Note to others:

You tell me. How does he not propose this to me as a libertarian would? As though I am free to think through all of this and then, of my own volition, provide him with a position wholly in sync with the laws of matter...but one that I am also still responsible for.

And at least I am willing to acknowledge that, given human autonomy, I may well be thinking this all through in a less reasonable manner. I'm not a "my way or the highway" objectivist myself here.

[BigMike]

No, I say that if I say that, I say that because I was never able to not say that. And I say that whatever any of us either reject or accept in regard to moral responsibility, we were never able to not accept or reject.

So, you're fundamentally a hard determinist, then. Good to know.

[iambiguous]

ME:

Translation:

"These people refuse to agree entirely with my own arguments here about determinism. And are thus destroying the forum. Even though in lacking free will they were never actually able to choose that option."

A "condition", right?

I'll try to sum up where we differ, and I'll try to be fair:

So much more to the point for other determinists, however, you are compelled -- fated, destined -- by your brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter to sum up here as you did. As you must. And what difference does it make that we differ if we were never able to not differ other than as we do? As we must. And fairness in a world that can never be other than as it can only be?

I say: "We don't have free will, and moral responsibility doesn't make sense without it. So, instead of just saying, "Let's punish them because they deserve it!" we need to come up with new ways to deal with wrongdoers."

Again! As though in a wholly determined universe that includes the human brain, what we "come up with" in regards to anything and everything isn't that which we were fated, destined to come up going all the way back to what we still have no definitive understanding of regarding the origin of matter -- of existence -- itself.

We don't even know if matter and its alleged "immutable laws" had an origin, right? For all we know both were just always "there".

God perhaps? On the other hand, does the matter some call God have free will? Does He have a beginning or was He just always around?

You say: "We couldn't hold people morally responsible if they didn't have free will. So, we have to reject the idea that there is no free will."

No, I say that if I say that, I say that because I was never able to not say that. And I say that whatever any of us either reject or accept in regard to moral responsibility, we were never able to not accept or reject.

Do you think that, despite being brief and basic, that is essentially an accurate representation? If not, would you mind briefly outlining your position?

Click.

Note to others:

You tell me. How does he not propose this to me as a libertarian would? As though I am free to think through all of this and then, of my own volition, provide him with a position wholly in sync with the laws of matter...but one that I am also still responsible for.

And at least I am willing to acknowledge that, given human autonomy, I may well be thinking this all through in a less reasonable manner. I'm not a "my way or the highway" objectivist myself here.

HIM:

No, I say that if I say that, I say that because I was never able to not say that. And I say that whatever any of us either reject or accept in regard to moral responsibility, we were never able to not accept or reject.

So, you're fundamentally a hard determinist, then. Good to know.

Enough said?

[BigMike]

Enough said?

More than enough.

[iambiguous]

Enough said?

More than enough.

Note to nature:

You tell me.

[promethean75]

"No, I say that if I say that, I say that because I was never able to not say that. And I say that whatever any of us either reject or accept in regard to moral responsibility, we were never able to not accept or reject."

if i may, gentlemen. in the quote there are no statements of intent or position regarding the philosophy of determinism/freewill. instead, in genuine existentialist fashion, biggs is drawing attention to a neat little 'ain't that a bitch' situation that happens when a determinist expects or suggests of someone else that they should understand and/or agree with them.

the situation would almost demand of the determinist that he perform some kind of magic trick, suspend the laws of nature, intervene, and make another person 'understand' what he is saying. for without such a supernatural feat, there would be absolutely no point in debating determinism/freewill for the determinist unless he could be part of a complex of causes that results in the other guy understanding, finding sensible, and agreeing with, the theory of determinism.

so i say to you determinists; perhaps u could be that cause, gentlemen. i say participate in every possible way in the rational enlightenment of your fellows, as many of u have done already in this thread.

But never forget the absurd situation we are in, as biggs has shown... well as I have shown but that's what biggs was wanting to say.

p.s. y'all lucky I ain't teamed up with Biggs cuz if I wuz, it'd be ova for ya.

[iambiguous]

"No, I say that if I say that, I say that because I was never able to not say that. And I say that whatever any of us either reject or accept in regard to moral responsibility, we were never able to not accept or reject."

if i may, gentlemen. in the quote there are no statements of intent or position regarding the philosophy of determinism/freewill. instead, in genuine existentialist fashion, biggs is drawing attention to a neat little 'ain't that a bitch' situation that happens when a determinist expects or suggests of someone else that they should understand and/or agree with them.

the situation would almost demand of the determinist that he perform some kind of magic trick, suspend the laws of nature, intervene, and make another person 'understand' what he is saying. for without such a supernatural feat, there would be absolutely no point in debating determinism/freewill for the determinist unless he could be part of a complex of causes that results in the other guy understanding, finding sensible, and agreeing with, the theory of determinism.

so i say to you determinists; perhaps u could be that cause, gentlemen. i say participate in every possible way in the rational enlightenment of your fellows, as many of u have done already in this thread.

But never forget the absurd situation we are in, as biggs has shown... well as I have shown but that's what biggs was wanting to say.

p.s. y'all lucky I ain't teamed up with Biggs cuz if I wuz, it'd be ova for ya.

Note to Nature:

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[phyllo]

"No, I say that if I say that, I say that because I was never able to not say that. And I say that whatever any of us either reject or accept in regard to moral responsibility, we were never able to not accept or reject."

if i may, gentlemen. in the quote there are no statements of intent or position regarding the philosophy of determinism/freewill. instead, in genuine existentialist fashion, biggs is drawing attention to a neat little 'ain't that a bitch' situation that happens when a determinist expects or suggests of someone else that they should understand and/or agree with them.

the situation would almost demand of the determinist that he perform some kind of magic trick, suspend the laws of nature, intervene, and make another person 'understand' what he is saying. for without such a supernatural feat, there would be absolutely no point in debating determinism/freewill for the determinist unless he could be part of a complex of causes that results in the other guy understanding, finding sensible, and agreeing with, the theory of determinism.

so i say to you determinists; perhaps u could be that cause, gentlemen. i say participate in every possible way in the rational enlightenment of your fellows, as many of u have done already in this thread.

But never forget the absurd situation we are in, as biggs has shown... well as I have shown but that's what biggs was wanting to say.

p.s. y'all lucky I ain't teamed up with Biggs cuz if I wuz, it'd be ova for ya.

If you're talking to a guy, then that means he hasn't eaten poison, fallen off a cliff or drowned while brushing his teeth.

In other words, he has enough cognitive ability to successfully navigate existence on this planet. Evolution has weeded out all those who lacked this ability.

That's the "cause" for understanding.

Whether he has the ability to understand the particular concept that you are explaining is unclear. It depends on lots of thing including your ability to explain.

But he has the potential to understand. He might even understand it better than you.

And if we had free-will, then there is no guarantee that guy you are talking to, can understand what you are explaining. Exactly the same problems arise ... the guy is stupid, you're unskilled in explaining, etc.

[bobmax]

"No, I say that if I say that, I say that because I was never able to not say that. And I say that whatever any of us either reject or accept in regard to moral responsibility, we were never able to not accept or reject."

if i may, gentlemen. in the quote there are no statements of intent or position regarding the philosophy of determinism/freewill. instead, in genuine existentialist fashion, biggs is drawing attention to a neat little 'ain't that a bitch' situation that happens when a determinist expects or suggests of someone else that they should understand and/or agree with them.

the situation would almost demand of the determinist that he perform some kind of magic trick, suspend the laws of nature, intervene, and make another person 'understand' what he is saying. for without such a supernatural feat, there would be absolutely no point in debating determinism/freewill for the determinist unless he could be part of a complex of causes that results in the other guy understanding, finding sensible, and agreeing with, the theory of determinism.

so i say to you determinists; perhaps u could be that cause, gentlemen. i say participate in every possible way in the rational enlightenment of your fellows, as many of u have done already in this thread.

But never forget the absurd situation we are in, as biggs has shown... well as I have shown but that's what biggs was wanting to say.

p.s. y'all lucky I ain't teamed up with Biggs cuz if I wuz, it'd be ova for ya.

But it is precisely in that absurdity that one must immerse oneself.
Because it's about yourself.

Even the suspicion that free will is an illusion should show you the absurd.
And then we must face that absurdity: what would it mean if it were not absurd instead?

And there is no need for determinism, which I don't believe in.
That free will does not exist is a moral necessity.

[BigMike]

I find it incomprehensible that some individuals consciously disregard the fact that humans can remember and, as a result, learn, despite being repeatedly reminded of this fact. Unfortunately, these skills deteriorate as people age or as a result of certain neurological conditions that make their brains sluggish and make comprehension difficult or impossible. In fact, we may have witnessed the manifestations of this decline in recent forum posts.